Scorching court opinion posted: Federal judge ridicules ‘stupid’ Illinois abortion ‘misinformation’ law and Attorney General Raoul – Wirepoints

SB 1909 is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged. It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized—on the very same subject no less. SB 1909 is likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.

The Germans have a word called “verschlimmbesserung.” This noun essentially translates into English as “to the moment something is made worse by improvement.” The verb form is “verschlimmbessern.” As shown in this Order, in the most charitable light, Defendant Raoul engaged in verschlimmbessern.

With only very minor exceptions discussed later, Defendant Raoul did not defend the merits of SB 1909—understandably so.

A more unambiguous chilling and self-censorship of protected speech there cannot be…. Only fools would not have their First Amendment rights chilled under these circumstances.

SB 1909 requires on pain of various sanctions that they state or include in their written materials the benefits or positive effects of abortion, which will apparently be determined by Defendant Raoul in bringing an enforcement action. And, again, abortion providers are under no similar obligation.

Defendant Raoul offered no evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing. Instead, there were various representations by counsel as to generally how in their personal experience the Consumer Fraud Act was enforced. There was no representation that either counsel ever personally enforced the Consumer Fraud Act.

Again, despite being questioned about the lawsuit at the press conference that he attended with Planned Parenthood, being served the week before the preliminary injunction hearing, and receiving notice of the hearing two days before the hearing, Defendant Raoul presented no evidence or witnesses… Court decisions are rendered on evidence presented to the Court. As we all hopefully understand at this point in this Nation’s history, press conferences and press releases don’t work in court.

SB 1909 is content based discrimination. The subject of the prohibited speech is not just abortion but speech that emphasizes the negative effects of abortion. What’s more, there is ample evidence in the record before the Court at this time that SB 1909 was adopted because of Defendant Raoul’s disagreement about the content of Plaintiffs’ speech. The message of Plaintiffs’ speech is subject to prohibition under SB 1909 but abortion providers’ speech is specifically excluded from being sanctioned under the Consumer Fraud Act.

SB 1909 immunizes abortion providers from asserting something as untruthful as this: “Abortions cure male pattern baldness.” But, in contrast, if Plaintiffs’ brochures highlighted only the negative side effects of abortion, they may be subject to liability for omitting “material facts.”

Defendant Raoul casually attempted to defend SB 1909 under the commercial speech doctrine. Despite its thinness, the Court will address the argument…. Defendant Raoul made even less of an attempt to defend SB 1909 under the concept of professional speech. Again, for the sake of a full record, the Court will address it.

Both Raoul and Pritzker said, in response to Friday’s order, that they are confident the new law ultimately will be upheld. Pritzker, as usual, blamed the “far right,” saying the lawsuit and the injunction are efforts by the far right to interfere “with the ability for women to access safe medical care without deception or lies.”

Please, please do appeal the order, Mr. Raoul and Mr. Pritzker. You will lose, and an appellate ruling against you will further fortify the First Amendment.

It’s particularly frightening that Raoul and Pritzker are so hostile to free speech rights. The First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights protect minorities against tyranny by the majority. Raoul and Pritzker shouldn’t need a reminder that minorities like Blacks and Jews end up worst off, in the long run, when protections for fundamental rights are eviscerated.

Friday’s ruling was a welcome victory for free speech, but the broader assault on it by today’s left continues.

Pritzker’s views are particularly radical and go far beyond SB 1909, which he played out on CNN and we wrote about Monday.

A new column by Victor Davis Hanson, a Stanford historian, lists the ten most serious ways in which we face “one of the most radical revolutions in American history.”

Number one on his list, rightly, is that assault on free speech, because free speech is the foundation of a democratic republic. Mark his words:

In large swatches of American society—particularly the corporation, the media, the government, the public schools, and the university—it is suddenly dangerous to speak freely. At a DEI workshop, politely object that “whiteness” does not account for all the challenges of “marginalized peoples,” and you will become either ostracized, reprimanded, or perhaps fired.

Suggest to a class that man-made climate change and the state remedies for it, are still under debate—and your career and livelihood are endangered. In 2020, state that Covid lockdowns would do more eventual damage than the virus—and your career was through. Express doubt that there are more than two biological sexes, and if an athlete or high school principal you will be shunned or rendered professionally inert.

The government, in league with social media, censors the news. “Liberal” universities often first require McCarthy-era type “diversity” statements for one to be hired. Commissars review syllabi to spot incorrect or improper speech or insufficient DEI zeal.

The Left now seeks to modify the First Amendment, and its empowerment of “hate speech,” defined as most anything impeding the progressive project. The state and the universities properly issue word lists of approved vocabularies

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.